ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
14,
1982
NORRIS CITY SANITARY DISTRICT
)
and LAMPLIGHT MANOR
APARTMENT COMPLEX,
Petitioners,
v.
)
PCB 81—187
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. JAMES VAN ~‘JINKLE,ATTORNEY—AT-LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
THE NORRIS CITY SANITARY DISTRICT.
MR.
E.
H.
PRICE, ATTORNEY—AT—LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF LAMPLIGHT
MANOR APARTMENT COMPLEX.
MR. STEVEN C.
EWART, TECHNICAL ADVISOR, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OI~’
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board upon a November 23,
1981
filing of a petition for variance by the Norris City Sanitary
District
(NCSD) seeking a variance from old Rule 962(a) of
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
(now §309.241 of 35
Ill.
Admin.
Code,
Subtitle C).
Pursuant
to a Board Order of December
3,
1981,
NCSD filed an amended petition on April
14, 1982 joining Lamplight
Manor Apartment Complex (Lamplight Manor)
as a co-petitioner.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) had filed a
recommendation that variance be denied on February
3,
1982.
That
recommendation was accompanied by a motion to file instanter which
is hereby granted.
NCSD had waived hearing, but based upon an
objection filed with the Board on December 11,
1981,
the Board
authorized
a hearing which was held on April
16,
1982.
NCSD and Lamplight Manor seek this variance to allow
for
the construction of a twenty-unit,
low income, multi—family
housing project to be
located in Norris City and known as
Lamplight Manor Apartments.
The project is proposed to connect
through a sewer extension to the NCSD watewater treatment
plant
(plant) which has been on restricted status since June
15,
1977.
The complex, when fully occupied,
is proposed to
house sixty people.
49-161
2
NCSD arid Lamplight Manor hope to obtain funding from a
grant by the Farmers
Home Administration
(FmHA) and allege
that unless construction
begins soon, the
opportunity to obtain
such funding will be
lost, thereby creating a hardship on
low
income families
in Norris City.
However, construction cannot
commence without a permit from the Agency,
and due to the re-
stricted status of the plant,
the Agency cannot grant
the permit
unless the requested variance is granted.
The NCSD plant consists of a grit chamber, bar screen,
Imhoff
tank,
dosing siphon,
trickling filter, final clarifier and sludge
drying
beds,
and has a design average flow of 0.125 MGD.
Discharge
from this plant is to an unnamed tributary of Bear Creek which
is tributary to the North Fork of the Saline River.
The NCSD was placed on restricted status as
a result of
an Agency determination that the plant was being operated
with a tributary waste
load of approximately 170 percent of
the design hydraulic capacity and that the sewage collection
system did riot have adequate capacity to transport peak flow
rates.
Two bypasses are provided at the NCSI) plant:
one leads
from the bar screen to an underground line discharging
to the
plant’s outfall and the second comes
from the effluent side
of the trickling filter which also bypasses to the receiving
stream.
These are used during periods of moderate to
heavy
rainfall due to hydraulic overloading of the plant.
The NCSD
was issued NPDES Permit No.
tL003155 on October
13,
1977,
which requires effluent limitations of
30 mg/i of total suspen-
ded solids and five-day biochemical oxygen demand.
According to
a January 29, 1981 Agency inspection,
the
NCSD plant is well kept and receives adequate maintenance, but
due to inflow in the collection system and resulting hydraulic
overloading, NPDES permit conditions are not being met.
Furthermore, observations made during routine monthly effluent
sampling by Agency personnel have reported that the effluent
was slightly cloudy and occasionally contained some floating solids.
When condition downstream of the NCSD have been observed
during the above-mentioned sampling visits,
Agency personnel
have reported observing sludge—like bottom deposits
(R.
96
and 103).
According
to the January 29,
1981 inspection
report,
some solids were observed in the vegetation along
the banks
of
the receiving stream below the NCSD plant~soutfall
(R.
96).
On February 25,
1977,
an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis
was completed.
Based upon that study the Agency notified
Norris City that the data submitted qualified it for grant
funds
for a Sewer System Evaluation Survey, which was completed in late
1978.
A sewer rehabilitaion design
was
submitted to the Agency
in March, 1981 and approved on September 28,
1981.
Rehabi1itation
49-162
3
construction of the
oeer
system
was to begin in November, 1981.
The Agency s grants for Step II design and Step III construction
of the plant have
been
obligated since March 18,
1980 with con-
struction overdue as a rebult of treatment lagoon site location
problems caused by tie P
:tme
Va:m
Land
Clause
of
the
FmHA
Loan
and
Grant Projrams
NC3D
has recently decided to
renovate
its
existing
plant ratnr
Jiai
pits
c.
he construction of a lagoon
which
would
utilize
tcen
y
tces
of
faraland.
NCSD
was notified to proceed with sewerline rehabilitation
construction bids in
October,
1981.
Approximately $100,000 of
manhole
and sewerline rehabilitation is proposed for the col-
lection
system
under
the STEP III Construction Phase.
Approx-
imately $680,000 of renovation
and
upgrading of the existing
plant is also proposea unaer SflP IL and STEP III.
The con-
struction work
proposed
fill consist of upgrading
and
expanding
the existing plant to an average design flow of 186,000 gal-
lons
per day
which includes the projected population for Norris
City in the year 2000, clue nfiltration and inflow not eliminated
under the Collectior
Systca
Retabilitation Project.
Stormwater
retention will be provided
p1
t’
ammonia nitrogen removal,
tertiary treatment,
and
d sinfection.
Construction is expected
to be completea
in
Decenbec,
1983.
NCS~
aid 1..ampl~9t
L~asO,.
calege that the project will
have a negligible impact or.
lie sewage load to the plant
since
most
of the
fan
iO.
who will occt.py the proposed project
will be re
ocated
fron
f
thu
Norris City and are
currently living
with
frie.ds or relatives or in substandard or
dilapidated housing
Thcrefore,
the proposed housing development
will allegedly cause neater a substantial population increase nor
a substantial increase in sewsc treatment loads.
NCSD officials
and real
estate consultants
expect
at
least 80
of the future
population to be from Norris City with a
maximum
of 20
from
elsewhere
..n
White
cc’
n’y
Furthermore,
NCSD
aid
Lanplight
Manor
estimate
that
even
if
the
project
is
occupied
by
out-of-city
residents,
the
increased
load
upon
the
plant
will
be
2
400
gpd
based
upon
other
similar
housing
pro3ects
Using
the
standard
100
gpd/person,
however,
an
increased
load
of
6,000
gpd would be expected.
Allegedly,
4,400
gpd
have
been
eliminated
from
the
system
during
the last 3 years which would offset the increased contribution
from
the Lamplight Manor pro ect or at least most of it.
However,
maintenance of the status quo is not necessarily
a desirable goal, nor is it the goal of the imposition of
restricted status.
Mr. Austin,
who
saves on Liberty Street
in Norris City,
has
a ‘backflow of raw sewage’ that ‘comes
out in the
yard’
during periods of rain
(11. 34—35).
Before
changing the placement of the sewer line vent in 1972, raw
sewage
came
into his bathroom
(R
35-36).
Even
now he
cannot
flush his toilet ‘when the rain falls’
(R.
36).
He, apparently,
is
not
satisfied
that
these problems ‘have remained the
same’
(R. 44-45).
In its recommendation, the Agency stated that al—
49-163
lowing increased flows
c
uld aggravate overflows and basement
backups.
Balar~c~d
a9~tn~
tli
~
;~enta~.harm is the alleged
hardship to low~incorer~.~
s of Norris City,
the potential
loss of
FrnHA furding and t1~~o~s inc~rrcdby Lamplight Manor.
Architectutal and
e
g~nEering
fees,
surveys and related
expenses from the time of application until March, 1982 totaled
$40,000 plus an additional
$5 000 in related expenses
(R.
7—10).
However, these expenses were incurred years after the imposition
of restricted status, and,
therefore,
represent a self—imposed
hardship.
The potential loss of FmHA funding
is also not the sort of
hardship contemplated by the Environmental Protection Act to
support the grantIng of variance,
As the Board held
in H.J.
nB~ldf~sInç.vILPA,
PCB
19
264,
38 PCB 163
(May 1,
1980),
“the denial of federal funding or lack of other access
to funding does not const1.
fp
an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship, especrally ~ii-e
0
0
project
s a proposed one.
This is all the more true
~er~
Petitioier has not proven an
actual denial of funds
u
pleacs only tneir threatened denial.”
Although the ;enera
,Tana~rof LarnpFght Manor testified that
FmHA financirg “would become more questionable with any extended
delay at all,
it would ne~crhe
onstructed”
(R
77), in
a letter from the Di~tr~tDirector of F~nHAto the Agency,
Mr.
Teckenbrock stated
ti-at denL~of variance ~could affect
funds
for this project”
(Anended i~et
,
Ex.
#4).
Based upon
this evidence, the Board cannot find that the funding will
necessarily be denied.
Several persons testified as
to the need for low—income
housing in Norris City
(R.
13,
43,
74 and 76), although only
opinions were expressed.
Exhibit
#4 of the Amended Petition
is
cited as proof of such need,
but the only relevant statement
in that regard is that the raising of tenant~sincome “has
changed the need greatly,~ and “that it appears the project
will be funded by” FmHA.
Thus,
the Board is faced with balancing an ill—supported
need for low—income housing against environmental harm that is
now occuring.
However, NCSD a~i.dLamplight Manor allege, and
the Agency has presented nothing to rebut
it, that the upgrading
of the sewer system was to have nee~completed by August of
1982,
that the project will not be completed until early summer
of
1983, that full occupancy will “probably be in August or
September of ~
and that conpletion of upgrading of the plant
will be
in December,
1983
(R.
86-87 and Amended Pet,).
Further,
the timetable for completion of the project did not take into
account the nearly four month delay in the preparation of the
transcript in this matter,
such that there would probably be no
added
flows
to the plant until
late summer of 1983.
5
The Board will grant the variance conditional on occupancy
only after the
sewage
plant upgrading is completed.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter,
ORDER
Norris City Sanitary District and Lamplight Manor Apart-
ment Complex are hereby granted variance from Section 309.241
of Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code,
Subtitle C:
Water Pollution, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Norris City Sanitary District shall make a good
faith effort to complete the upgrading of its waste—
water treatment plant as expeditiously as possible;
2.
Norris
City
Sanitary
District shall take all reason-
able
actions
to
reduce
the
amount
of
surface
water
entering
its
sewer
lines
from identified defects
in
the
system;
3.
The
apartment complex shall not be allowed to connect
to
the
NCSD sewer system until the sewage plant upgrading
is completed;
and
4.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
the
Norris
City Sanitary District and Lamplight Manor Apartment
Complex shall execute and forward to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement Programs,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706,a
Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound by
all
the terms and conditions of this variance.
This
45-day period shall be held in abeyance for any period
this matter is being appealed.
The form of the Certifi-
cate shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
We, the Norris City Sanitary District and Lamplight Manor
Apartment Complex, having read the Order of the Illinois Pol-
lution Control Board in PCB 81—187 dated October 14,
1982,
understand and accept said Order, realizing that such acceptance
renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
—
49-165
6
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Board, hereby certify that the above Opin’on and Order were
adopted on the ______________day of
____________,
1982
byavoteof
~o
c~r~
Christan
L.
Moff
,
Clerk
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
49-166